Literature DB >> 22273170

Behind Closed Doors: What Happens when Patients and Providers Talk about Prostate-Specific Antigen Screening?: Survey of the Effects of a Community-Based Intervention.

Lauren McCormack1, Pamela Williams-Piehota, Carla Bann.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: : Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening is controversial because of uncertainty about whether it reduces mortality and whether the potential benefits outweigh the harms. Given these uncertainties, many medical associations recommend using an informed decision-making (IDM) process for making decisions about PSA screening, so that men can make well informed decisions that reflect their values and preferences.
OBJECTIVE: : The aim of this paper was to describe the communication exchange between men and their providers regarding PSA screening and the outcomes associated with having a discussion about screening from the patient perspective.
METHODS: : We evaluated survey results obtained at baseline and approximately 12 months post-intervention. Baseline data collection took place in community-based organizations, and follow-up data were collected by mail. Men between 40 and 80 years of age who had not been diagnosed with prostate cancer were eligible for the study. We implemented a multicomponent, community-based intervention designed to help men make informed decisions about PSA screening. Primary outcome measures included characteristics of patient-provider discussions, screening behavior, feeling informed and satisfied, and patients' preferred and actual levels of involvement in screening decisions and concordance between the two.
RESULTS: : Overall, 59% of men (220 of 373) had a discussion with a healthcare professional about the PSA screening test. Older men (those aged ≥50 years), Black men, and those who were married were more likely to talk to a provider. When a discussion did occur, two out of three men said that the discussion affected their decision making, and one-quarter changed their screening choice as a result. According to patients, there was apparent variation regarding the extent to which providers recommended the PSA test: 68% of providers recommended it and 3% did not recommend it. One in ten men said that the provider ordered the test without making a recommendation, while 15% of men said that providers did not make a recommendation and wanted the patient to decide.We found that the discussion between the patient and the provider about PSA screening was significantly associated with a greater probability of feeling informed and higher levels of satisfaction with the decision that was made. Most men preferred to be and were involved in the PSA screening decision collaboratively with their providers. When preferred and actual levels of involvement were concordant (i.e. men participated at their preferred level) and when men asked questions, men reported feeling more informed and satisfied about the screening decision.
CONCLUSION: : Ongoing education about the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommendation with respect to PSA screening should occur not only at the patient level but also at the provider level. More widespread adoption of the IDM process, which inherently involves building a patient's self-efficacy and skills needed to engage in it, is likely to take time.

Entities:  

Year:  2009        PMID: 22273170     DOI: 10.2165/11312730-000000000-00000

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Patient        ISSN: 1178-1653            Impact factor:   3.883


  29 in total

1.  Screening for prostate cancer: recommendation and rationale.

Authors: 
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2002-12-03       Impact factor: 25.391

2.  Decision making in prostate-specific antigen screening National Health Interview Survey, 2000.

Authors:  Paul K J Han; Ralph J Coates; Robert J Uhler; Nancy Breen
Journal:  Am J Prev Med       Date:  2006-03-23       Impact factor: 5.043

3.  Screening for prostate cancer: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement.

Authors: 
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2008-08-05       Impact factor: 25.391

4.  Patient participation in medical consultations: why some patients are more involved than others.

Authors:  Richard L Street; Howard S Gordon; Michael M Ward; Edward Krupat; Richard L Kravitz
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  2005-10       Impact factor: 2.983

Review 5.  Variability in patient preferences for participating in medical decision making: implication for the use of decision support tools.

Authors:  A Robinson; R Thomson
Journal:  Qual Health Care       Date:  2001-09

6.  Enthusiasm for cancer screening in the United States.

Authors:  Lisa M Schwartz; Steven Woloshin; Floyd J Fowler; H Gilbert Welch
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2004-01-07       Impact factor: 56.272

7.  Shared decision making about screening and chemoprevention. a suggested approach from the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force.

Authors:  Stacey L Sheridan; Russell P Harris; Steven H Woolf
Journal:  Am J Prev Med       Date:  2004-01       Impact factor: 5.043

8.  Screening men for prostate and colorectal cancer in the United States: does practice reflect the evidence?

Authors:  Brenda E Sirovich; Lisa M Schwartz; Steven Woloshin
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2003-03-19       Impact factor: 56.272

9.  Closing the loop: physician communication with diabetic patients who have low health literacy.

Authors:  Dean Schillinger; John Piette; Kevin Grumbach; Frances Wang; Clifford Wilson; Carolyn Daher; Krishelle Leong-Grotz; Cesar Castro; Andrew B Bindman
Journal:  Arch Intern Med       Date:  2003-01-13

10.  Are physicians discussing prostate cancer screening with their patients and why or why not? A pilot study.

Authors:  Carmen E Guerra; Samantha E Jacobs; John H Holmes; Judy A Shea
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2007-07       Impact factor: 5.128

View more
  3 in total

1.  Primary care physicians' use of an informed decision-making process for prostate cancer screening.

Authors:  Robert J Volk; Suzanne K Linder; Michael A Kallen; James M Galliher; Mindy S Spano; Patricia Dolan Mullen; Stephen J Spann
Journal:  Ann Fam Med       Date:  2013 Jan-Feb       Impact factor: 5.166

2.  Predictors of annual prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening among black men: results from an urban community-based prostate cancer screening program.

Authors:  Marquita W Lewis-Thames; Saira Khan; Veronica Hicks; Bettina F Drake
Journal:  J Mens Health       Date:  2021-09-29       Impact factor: 0.537

3.  Physician Consultations, Prostate Cancer Knowledge, and PSA Screening of African American Men in the Era of Shared Decision-Making.

Authors:  Leanne Woods-Burnham; Laura Stiel; Colwick Wilson; Susanne Montgomery; Alfonso M Durán; Herbert R Ruckle; Rupert A Thompson; Marino De León; Carlos A Casiano
Journal:  Am J Mens Health       Date:  2018-04-16
  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.